Prosecuting Adultery Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice After Lawrence V. Texas

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Scott Maravilla
Keyword(s):  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code

Military Law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice

1955 ◽  
Vol 55 (8) ◽  
pp. 1244
Author(s):  
A. Arthur Schiller ◽  
William B. Aycock ◽  
Seymour W. Wurfel
Keyword(s):  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Law

Swords and Scales: The Development of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

1975 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 477
Author(s):  
Charles A. Leonard ◽  
William T. Generous
Keyword(s):  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code

Rethinking Mutiny

2021 ◽  
pp. 9-57
Author(s):  
Keith Grint
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Relations ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Socially Constructed ◽  
The Social ◽  
Slave Ships ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
The Difference

This chapter begins with defining mutiny and exploring its origins. It considers the nature of military relationships across time before focusing upon the British Army Act (1955) and the American Uniform Code of Military Justice. The issues of mutiny as a collective act, and the active or passive role of those involved in mutinies, are used to illustrate the intricacies of the legal framework which then flows into using cases of mutiny on slave ships to highlight the importance of the historical context. The nature of sovereign power is then used to illustrate both the coercive control over military subordinates and the fragility of that very same coercion. This leads into the way the act of mutiny is socially constructed—in other words, what counts as ‘mutiny’ is a subjective not an objective construction. The chapter concludes with two sections, the first of which lists the ‘Refrains of Mutiny’: the patterns that recur across space and time, from the social construction of mutiny to the importance of establishing who the enemy is, the role of antecedence, the default response of the authorities, the importance of scapegoating, the omnipresence of the phenomena, the role of the heroic leader, the impact of serendipity, the relational nature of leadership, and finally the role of enthralment. The final section focuses on various explanations of mutiny, using material drawn from political revolutions and industrial relations to highlight the similarities and differences between these and mutinies, and relates such disputes to the difference between agonism and antagonism.

Military Systems of Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Crosbie ◽  
Meredith Kleykamp
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Military ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Systems ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
American Case ◽  
Military Law ◽  
Armed Services

Sociologists have largely ignored the study of military tribunals and justice systems. We offer a descriptive overview of military systems of justice intended for use by political and military sociologists, focusing on the case of the United States armed services. We contextualize the principal military systems of justice and provide extended discussions of how the American case connects through formal and informal channels to international legal structures. American military law and justice link three key legal realms: international law on conflict and security at the global level; the so called National Security Constitution at the national level; and the Uniform Code of Military Justice at the institutional level.

Litigating National Security Cases under The United States Uniform Code of Military Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 250-274
Author(s):  
Lieutenant Commander Ursula Smith ◽  
Colonel Daniel J. Lecce
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
National Security ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Military ◽  
Military Rule ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Commissions

This paper will discuss classified litigation procedures in United States Military Courts-Martial, governed by Military Rule of Evidence 505 and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The differences between United States Federal Court procedures and United States Military Commissions, governed by the Classified Information Privilege Act (cipa) and Military Commissions Rule of Evidence 505, are also discussed. Finally, best practices and selected military cases regarding espionage are presented.

scholarly journals The Geneva Boomerang: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 and U.S. Counterterror Operations

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack M. Beard
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
The Military ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Practicable Method ◽  
The U.S

Over five years have passed since President George W. Bush issued the much-criticized order making an obscure device, military commissions, the primary tool for the United States to bring accused Qaeda terrorists to justice. Some legal scholars suggested in the wake of the issuance of that order that military commissions were the only practicable method available to address many of the problems presented by the trial of accused terrorists in civilian U.S. courts. True or not, it is clear that the decision to approach the problem of terrorists primarily in terms of war rather than crime continues to have far-reaching legal consequences. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which found that the military commissions designed by the Bush administration were inconsistent with the requirements of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.) and the law of war as incorporated in that statute, the U.S. Congress attempted to fashion a compliant charter for these commissions through the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document